and many more benefits!

Find us on Facebook

GMAT Club Timer Informer

Hi GMATClubber!

Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:

Show Tags

Show Tags

06 Sep 2011, 15:52

I choose A.

Some who favor putting governmental enterprises into private hands suggest that conservation objectives would in general be better served if private environmental groups were put in charge of operating and financing the national park system, which is now run by the government.

Which of the following, assuming that it is a realistic possibility, argues most strongly against the suggestion above?

(A) Those seeking to abolish all restrictions on exploiting the natural resources of the parks might join the private environmental groups as members and eventually take over their leadership.As regulations/restrictions are framed by government, the government will never seek to abolish the restrictions. If the park is managed by private environmental groups, the people seeking to abolish the restrictions that stops them from exploiting the natural resources of the parks might join the private group and get those laws/restrictions abolished.(B) Private environmental groups might not always agree on the best ways to achieve conservation objectives. (might arrive at alternate ways to achieve the conservation objectives)(C) If they wished to extend the park system, the private environmental groups might have to seek contributions from major donors and general public. [color=#0000FF](out of scope)(D) There might be competition among private environmental groups for control of certain park areas. (this will lead to conservation)(E) Some endangered species, such as the California condor, might die out despite the best efforts of the private environmental groups, even if those groups are not hampered by insufficient resources. (out of scope)

Show Tags

06 Sep 2011, 17:50

IMO A. The argument mentions that the conservation objectives would be better served by private environmental groups. In other words, the private environmental groups will conserve better whatever is given to them. In this case its parks and hence may be the natural resources. We can attempt to guess the answer with this information only. We are required to weaken the argument. So lets ask ourselves, why should the parks be handed over to private groups? The obvious answer is because they conserve better. Now what if they don't conserve or may be rather exploit the resources - in both these cases the conclusion will be weakened. A does that.

goalsnr wrote:

Some who favor putting governmental enterprises into private hands suggest that conservation objectives would in general be better served if private environmental groups were put in charge of operating and financing the national park system, which is now run by the government.

Which of the following, assuming that it is a realistic possibility, argues most strongly against the suggestion above?

(A) Those seeking to abolish all restrictions on exploiting the natural resources of the parks might join the private environmental groups as members and eventually take over their leadership. -It says people who dnt want resources to be conserved will join private groups and hence will eventually exploit the resources. CORRECT(B) Private environmental groups might not always agree on the best ways to achieve conservation objectives.-we are not bothered about the ways to achieve the objective. Argument does not talk about the objectives at all.(C) If they wished to extend the park system, the private environmental groups might have to seek contributions from major donors and general public.-out of scope(D) There might be competition among private environmental groups for control of certain park areas.again when you read this you should ask - so what?(E) Some endangered species, such as the California condor, might die out despite the best efforts of the private environmental groups, even if those groups are not hampered by insufficient resources.

Show Tags

Some who favor putting governmental enterprises into private hands suggest that conservation objectives would in general be better served if private environmental groups were put in charge of operating and financing the national park system, which is now run by the government.

Which of the following, assuming that it is a realistic possibility, argues most strongly against the suggestion above?

(A) Those seeking to abolish all restrictions on exploiting the natural resources of the parks might join the private environmental groups as members and eventually take over their leadership.(B) Private environmental groups might not always agree on the best ways to achieve conservation objectives.(C) If they wished to extend the park system, the private environmental groups might have to seek contributions from major donors and general public.(D) There might be competition among private environmental groups for control of certain park areas.(E) Some endangered species, such as the California condor, might die out despite the best efforts of the private environmental groups, even if those groups are not hampered by insufficient resources.

In order to solve this type of CR problem (weaken the conclusion), you need to properly understand the argument structure, especially any key assumptions (unstated by required by the argument).

Here is the argument structure:Some [people/groups] favor putting government enterprises under private control. PremiseThe national park system is run by the government. PremiseConservation efforts would be better served if private environmental groups operated/financed National Parks. Suggestion/Conclusion

Back to assumptions - they bridge the logical gap between the premises and the conclusion. In our case here the premises only establish that some people favor private control and the national parks are currently run by the government. How can we conclude anything about how well the conservation efforts will be served? We have to make assumptions about the private environmental groups ability to serve these conservation efforts. Our weakening answer will most strongly attack the assumption that private environmental groups can and will serve conservation efforts.

A. If people seeking to abolish evironmental regulations gained control over the private environmental groups running the national parks, we could no longer conclude that conservation efforts would be served. This seriously weakens the conclusion (suggestion).B. This does weaken the argument somewhat because it casts some doubt on the ability to provide the BEST conservation efforts. The suggestion, however, is that private groups will better serve conservation efforts, not that they will always provide the best possible solutions. While it does cast some doubt, it does not invalidate the conclusion (suggestion) as A does.C/D/E. All are out of scope.

Re: Some who favor putting governmental enterprises into private [#permalink]

Show Tags

03 Sep 2012, 06:10

Some who favor putting governmental enterprises into private hands suggest that conservation objectives would in general be better served if private environmental groups were put in charge of operating and financing the national park system, which is now run by the government.

Which of the following, assuming that it is a realistic possibility, argues most strongly against the suggestion above?

(A) Those seeking to abolish all restrictions on exploiting the natural resources of the parks might join the private environmental groups as members and eventually take over their leadership.(B) Private environmental groups might not always agree on the best ways to achieve conservation objectives.(C) If they wished to extend the park system, the private environmental groups might have to seek contributions from major donors and general public.(D) There might be competition among private environmental groups for control of certain park areas.(E) Some endangered species, such as the California condor, might die out despite the best efforts of the private environmental groups, even if those groups are not hampered by insufficient resources.

If there will be the privatization of govt.enterprises then the "bad people" would be willing to join the pvt. groups in order to get advantages, they can abolisg the restrictions on exploitation on natural resources and hence ruin the environment for their own profits.

Show Tags

Re: Some who favor putting governmental enterprises into private [#permalink]

Show Tags

02 Sep 2013, 06:25

goalsnr wrote:

Some who favor putting governmental enterprises into private hands suggest that conservation objectives would in general be better served if private environmental groups were put in charge of operating and financing the national park system, which is now run by the government.

Which of the following, assuming that it is a realistic possibility, argues most strongly against the suggestion above?

(A) Those seeking to abolish all restrictions on exploiting the natural resources of the parks might join the private environmental groups as members and eventually take over their leadership. (A) Of course those who want to abolish the restrictions placed on exploiting the natural resources can not as well want to join the group that is working towards conservation. So I think A does it.(B) Private environmental groups might not always agree on the best ways to achieve conservation objectives.(C) If they wished to extend the park system, the private environmental groups might have to seek contributions from major donors and general public.(D) There might be competition among private environmental groups for control of certain park areas.(E) Some endangered species, such as the California condor, might die out despite the best efforts of the private environmental groups, even if those groups are not hampered by insufficient resources.

A is the correct answer. I initially took it to be C, just because the private could not possibly seek any contribution from general public. The sentence question states 'if private environmental groups were put in charge of operating and financing'. I ruled C out and take A as my best answer.

Re: Some who favor putting governmental enterprises into private [#permalink]

Show Tags

02 Sep 2013, 08:48

A: Think from a practical aspect. A private ( environmental) group is easier to be approached and the laws can be bent for revenue. This is not the same with the government. Thus, the situation mentioned is quite possible.

B:Things which might seem "best" to one might not seem the same to someone else. To one the best way to attain 700+ in GMAT might be to study day-i and day-out, while for someone else getting such score might be to study smart.So, this is quite ambiguous.

Re: Some who favor putting governmental enterprises into private [#permalink]

Show Tags

02 Sep 2013, 08:50

A: Think from a practical aspect. A private ( environmental) group is easier to be approached and the laws can be bent for revenue. This is not the same with the government. Thus, the situation mentioned is quite possible.

B:Things which might seem "best" to one might not seem the same to someone else. To one the best way to attain 700+ in GMAT might be to study day-i and day-out, while for someone else getting such score might be to study smart.So, this is quite ambiguous.

(rest are quite irrelevant)

Remember the question is :Which of the following, assuming that it is a realistic possibility, argues most strongly against the suggestion above?

Show Tags

23 Dec 2013, 15:45

The key really is to see in the stimulus that you are allowed to brings assumptions from outside. Then, if you assume that that environmental groups can team up with private groups, this can obviously undermine the results of this plan. I agree too that this is a tough one.

Re: Some who favor putting governmental enterprises into private [#permalink]

Show Tags

22 Jan 2015, 23:43

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.